Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Kv21a
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:04 pm    Post subject: Kv21a Reply with quote

Hey have anyone every glared at this mummy and wonder who she might be everytime i look at her chin i have this assumption that this is Nefertiti. Whats the deal with this mummy and how come there was no dna givin from this mummy do any one have any information on this mummy[/img][/list]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oops not Kv21a Kv21b sorry folks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nicky_too
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 73
Location: Barnsley, South Yorkshire, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know it's not very scientific, but I usually start with Wikipedia and go on from there (via the sources, usually).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I'm aware KV21B's identity is not yet known, though that KV21A is the closest candidate (due to DNA results) to be the mother of Tutankhamun's babies, thus supporting the identity of the mummy of KV21A to be that of Ankhesenamun. Personally I hope KV21A is not Ankhesenamun, due to the fact that she does not have a head. Confused

With all this in mind, if I had to make a life or death decision of whom the mummy of KV21B was, I would assume Meritaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the only analysis of the DNA of that KV21 mummy that I know about:

http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/2011/08/tutankhamuns-family-tree-possibilities.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
This is the only analysis of the DNA of that KV21 mummy that I know about:

http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/2011/08/tutankhamuns-family-tree-possibilities.html


I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :

Quote:
Many persons are of the opinion that the remains are too young at time of death to be those of Akhenaten due to pronouncements by those who examined the skeleton in the past. However, it was most recently subjected to a CT-scan whereas Egyptian radiologist, Ashraf Selim, opined that the young man to whom the bones belonged had to be at least 22 years old when he died, but the doctor could not pinpoint the age any nearer than 22-45.


I thought it was well attested that the remains of KV55 were simply to young to be that of Akhenaten, yet this statement suggest otherwise Idea

Quote:
Even though the mummy known as the Younger Lady from KV35 [KV35YL] and the remains from KV55 appear to be the parents of Tutankhamun, that is no guarantee that they were--or that they were even husband and wife.


How so? I thought the DNA results concluded/proved that KV35 and KV55 were the parents of Tutankhamun?

Quote:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the KV55 individual is Smenkhkare. The only king's daughter that we know of who was his wife was a child of Akhenaten and Queen Nefertiti. The KV35YL and KV55 are full sister and brother.


However, this statement does get me thinking. Wouldn't Smenkhkare need to marry one of Akhenaten's daughters, in order to legitimize his rule? or is that already being done by marrying one of Amenhotep III daughters, his own sister? Perhaps Smenkhkare had previously been married to one of Amenhotep's/Queen's Tiye's daughter, then went on to marry Meritaten? Or he didn't marry Meritaten altogether --- .

I don't know if this is possible, but could Nebetah have been the mother of King Tutankhamun?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :

Quote:
Many persons are of the opinion that the remains are too young at time of death to be those of Akhenaten due to pronouncements by those who examined the skeleton in the past. However, it was most recently subjected to a CT-scan whereas Egyptian radiologist, Ashraf Selim, opined that the young man to whom the bones belonged had to be at least 22 years old when he died, but the doctor could not pinpoint the age any nearer than 22-45.
It was examined by Smith (1912), Derry (1931), Harrison (1966), Strouhal (1998/2010) and Filer (2001). Also Harris in 1988. All concluded that it was aged 18-26. It was re-examined in 2010 by Hawass, Selim et al as part of the genetic tests who (suprise!) concluded 25-45 (or 60 in some related TV specials) with lots of dissenting opinions. Here is a link to a decent article about a letter to JAMA describing someone's re-exam of the evidence from Filer etc. Strouhal appears to have examined the mummy/bones in 1998 but did not publish the finding until 2010 to refute Hawass.

There are also many many threads here discussing the dissent and results of the exam of KV55. Most notably, 2010 noted a single item as an indicator of age where Filer and Strouhal note "a long list" of indicators of an age of about 20.

Quote:
However, this statement does get me thinking. Wouldn't Smenkhkare need to marry one of Akhenaten's daughters, in order to legitimize his rule? or is that already being done by marrying one of Amenhotep III daughters, his own sister?

Depends on who he is and when he reigned. If Akhenaten named him coregent, he ought not to have needed any more to validate his rule; the king's word should be enough. In that case the marriage might have been to provide a position of prominence for Meritaten rather than relegating her to the harem or something.

OTOH, if Smenkhkare succeeded Akhenaten without having been coregent, the marriage might have been to validate him since he was not the son of the previous king. Or the marriage might have been to prevent a rival claimant from marrying her and presenting a stronger claim.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="VBadJuJu"]
Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :] Why don't you say her name? It was Marianne Luban. Are you trying to imply she doesn't know what she's talking about?

Quote:
Many persons are of the opinion that the remains are too young at time of death to be those of Akhenaten due to pronouncements by those who examined the skeleton in the past. However, it was most recently subjected to a CT-scan whereas Egyptian radiologist, Ashraf Selim, opined that the young man to whom the bones belonged had to be at least 22 years old when he died, but the doctor could not pinpoint the age any nearer than 22-45.


Well, was that a fair statement of the situation at the time or not? Do you see any judgments being made at that site as to who is who? I don't! All I see is a discussion of the DNA and what the possibilities are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry if it came out looking looking like I was quoting Nefer-anke. I was actually quoting VBJ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
This is the only analysis of the DNA of that KV21 mummy that I know about:

http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/2011/08/tutankhamuns-family-tree-possibilities.html


I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :

Quote:
Many persons are of the opinion that the remains are too young at time of death to be those of Akhenaten due to pronouncements by those who examined the skeleton in the past. However, it was most recently subjected to a CT-scan whereas Egyptian radiologist, Ashraf Selim, opined that the young man to whom the bones belonged had to be at least 22 years old when he died, but the doctor could not pinpoint the age any nearer than 22-45.


I thought it was well attested that the remains of KV55 were simply to young to be that of Akhenaten, yet this statement suggest otherwise Idea


Why? There was only one CT-scan of the mummy, overseen by Dr.Ashraf Selim. Do you think it should have been omitted from mention?

Quote:
Even though the mummy known as the Younger Lady from KV35 [KV35YL] and the remains from KV55 appear to be the parents of Tutankhamun, that is no guarantee that they were--or that they were even husband and wife.


How so? I thought the DNA results concluded/proved that KV35 and KV55 were the parents of Tutankhamun?[/quote]

It's a complex topic and perhaps needs more than one reading. As I see it, yes, those two can certainly have been the parents of Tutankhamun but, given a possible brother of the KV55 person, who would have much the same DNA (about 50%) at the loci, he could be the father, as well. There are a combination of 4 alleles each child can inherit from one set of parents. I think it's well-explained there. Just read it again and maybe you'll see.

Quote:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the KV55 individual is Smenkhkare. The only king's daughter that we know of who was his wife was a child of Akhenaten and Queen Nefertiti. The KV35YL and KV55 are full sister and brother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Sorry if it came out looking looking like I was quoting Nefer-anke. I was actually quoting VBJ.

Without actually quoting a single word by me.

Nefer-Ankhe seems not to be aware of the CT scan or the resulting debate or something. I made no comment on the link, just summarized the debate since 2010.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
This is the only analysis of the DNA of that KV21 mummy that I know about:

http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/2011/08/tutankhamuns-family-tree-possibilities.html


I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :

Quote:
Many persons are of the opinion that the remains are too young at time of death to be those of Akhenaten due to pronouncements by those who examined the skeleton in the past. However, it was most recently subjected to a CT-scan whereas Egyptian radiologist, Ashraf Selim, opined that the young man to whom the bones belonged had to be at least 22 years old when he died, but the doctor could not pinpoint the age any nearer than 22-45.


I thought it was well attested that the remains of KV55 were simply to young to be that of Akhenaten, yet this statement suggest otherwise Idea

Quote:
Even though the mummy known as the Younger Lady from KV35 [KV35YL] and the remains from KV55 appear to be the parents of Tutankhamun, that is no guarantee that they were--or that they were even husband and wife.


How so? I thought the DNA results concluded/proved that KV35 and KV55 were the parents of Tutankhamun?

Quote:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the KV55 individual is Smenkhkare. The only king's daughter that we know of who was his wife was a child of Akhenaten and Queen Nefertiti. The KV35YL and KV55 are full sister and brother.


However, this statement does get me thinking. Wouldn't Smenkhkare need to marry one of Akhenaten's daughters, in order to legitimize his rule? or is that already being done by marrying one of Amenhotep III daughters, his own sister? Perhaps Smenkhkare had previously been married to one of Amenhotep's/Queen's Tiye's daughter, then went on to marry Meritaten? Or he didn't marry Meritaten altogether --- .

I don't know if this is possible, but could Nebetah have been the mother of King Tutankhamun?


For one, I would be careful of using this article as a means to determine what the DNA results say. First, I know the author tends to have a particular axe to grind about Nefertiti (she insists on her as Tut's mother, something she has done since the 1990's, and has identified several mummies over the years as being that of Nefertiti, without much proof); secondly, she does not follow what even a cursory read of the JAMA results have submitted.

For example, I note she is quick to point out that KV 55 and KV 35YL are full brother and sister, but seems to want to deny KV 55 is Smenkhkare since KV 35 YL cannot be Meritaten. Stop and think about this: one fact does not necessarily lead the next as a conclusion.

Finally, I have my own question: why would would Smenkhkare "need to marry one of Akhenaten's daughters, in order to legitimize his rule"?

If the KV 55 remains are of a son of Amenhotep III and Tiye, as indicated by the Hawass, Gad et al. 2010 DNA review, and he is the only adult royal male available, he needs no "justification," via marriage, to legitimize his rule. Smenkhkare, if indeed KV 55 is so idenitified, rules by nature of being the son of a king (Amenhotep III). Marriage to a female of the previous king's immediate family is not a requirement for rule*, especially if the successor is a member of that same royal family. Case in point would be, for example, Thutmose I, who had even less legitimacy that Smenkhkare, but married Ahmose, a (half-?) sister, but did not marry for example, the two sister-wives of Amenhotep I, Merytamun (I) and Satkamose.

Robins (1993) has suggested that Thutmose I was possibly from a collateral side of the Ahmosid family, and when Amenhotep I died without issue, that Thutmose stepped in to rule, being "part of the family." This suggestion of Robins has not been shown as scientifically true via any DNA testing, however, primarily since the mummy which had been traditionally identified to be Thutmose I is now known to have been too young at death to represent that king.

If KV 55 is Smenkhkare (and there are more arguments to be made for this than simply denying that Smenkhkare actually existed or was another name of "King Neferneferuaten", IMO, as per Allen 1994 and 2009), then he is the father of Tutankhamun, through a full-sister of his, who was also a full daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. That is what the DNA tests to date tell us.

If the KV 55 remains, being dated as 20-25 years at death, are too young (Smith 1912, Derry 1931, Harrison 1966, and Filer 2000) to represent Akhenaten, who sired 6 daughters over a 17 year reign, then the only historical choice for next male king, after Akhenaten and before Tutankhamun, with which we are left is that KV 55 represents Smenkhkare.

* The so-called "heir-princess" theory, which claims that every succeeeding king must marry the "heir princess" (usually a sister or a daughter) who holds the legitimacy of the right to rule, has been throughly demolished since the 1980's. See Mertz 1952, Robins 1983, and Troy 1986.

Reference:

Allen, J. P. 2009. The Amarna Succession. In P. Brand and L. Cooper, eds., Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane: 9-20. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Volume 37. Leiden: Brill.

_________. 1994. Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re. Göttinger Miszellen 141: 7-17.

Derry, D. E. 1931. Notes on the Skeleton hitherto believed to be that of King Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 115-9.

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 17 (Autumn): 13-4.

Harrison, R. G. 1966. An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten. JEA 52: 95-119.

Hawass, Z., Y. Z. Gad, et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. Journal of the American medical Association 303 (7): 638-47.

_______________________. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. (eSupplement). Journal of the American medical Association 303 (7): 1-12.

Mertz, B. 1952. Certain Titles of the Egyptian Queens and Their Bearing on the Hereditary Right to the Throne. Ph. D. Dissertation (Unpublished). Oriental Languages and Literature. University of Chicago: Chicago.

Robins, G. 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

________. 1983. A Critical Examination of the Theory of the Right to the Throne of Ancient Egypt Passed Through the Female Line in the 18th Dynasty. Göttingen Miszellen 62: 67-77.

Smith, G. E. 2000 (1912). Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. No. 60151-61100. The Royal Mummies. Service des Antiquités de L'Égypte: Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. London: Duckworth.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :

For one, I would be careful of using this article as a means to determine what the DNA results say. First, I know the author tends to have a particular axe to grind about Nefertiti (she insists on her as Tut's mother, something she has done since the 1990's, and has identified several mummies over the years as being that of Nefertiti, without much proof)


Where is your proof of that? As far as I know, Marianne Luban, has only identified the YL35 as Nefertiti. And Google seems to indicate you have quite an axe to grind regarding Luban, but I'm sure you wouldn't want a discussion of the logistics of that!


Quote:
secondly, she does not follow what even a cursory read of the JAMA results have submitted.

For example, I note she is quick to point out that KV 55 and KV 35YL are full brother and sister, but seems to want to deny KV 55 is Smenkhkare since KV 35 YL cannot be Meritaten. Stop and think about this: one fact does not necessarily lead the next as a conclusion.


No, she doesn't deny KV55 can be Smenkhare at all. She simply states the parents of Tutankhamun cannot be Smnkhkare AND Meritaten--if they are KV55 and the YL. Why she says it is very obvious from the JAMA paper. Because Meritaten was not a child of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye--which the YL is--according to the DNA provided by the JAMA paper. Perhaps you should read the JAMA paper more than in a cursory fashion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
neseret wrote:
I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :

For one, I would be careful of using this article as a means to determine what the DNA results say. First, I know the author tends to have a particular axe to grind about Nefertiti (she insists on her as Tut's mother, something she has done since the 1990's, and has identified several mummies over the years as being that of Nefertiti, without much proof)


Where is your proof of that? As far as I know, Marianne Luban, has only identified the YL35 as Nefertiti. And Google seems to indicate you have quite an axe to grind regarding Luban, but I'm sure you wouldn't want a discussion of the logistics of that!


Actually it is the reverse, but again, not pertinent to this discussion.

SidneyF wrote:
neseret wrote:
secondly, she does not follow what even a cursory read of the JAMA results have submitted.

For example, I note she is quick to point out that KV 55 and KV 35YL are full brother and sister, but seems to want to deny KV 55 is Smenkhkare since KV 35 YL cannot be Meritaten. Stop and think about this: one fact does not necessarily lead the next as a conclusion.


No, she doesn't deny KV55 can be Smenkhare at all. She simply states the parents of Tutankhamun cannot be Smnkhkare AND Meritaten--if they are KV55 and the YL. Why she says it is very obvious from the JAMA paper. Because Meritaten was not a child of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye--which the YL is--according to the DNA provided by the JAMA paper. Perhaps you should read the JAMA paper more than in a cursory fashion.


However, as for her cursory read of the situation, what was noted earlier is a valid objection, which the Hawass, Gad 2010 review specifically states and Nefer-Ankh noted. Ms. Luban stated:

There is nothing preventing the KV35YL from being the mother of Tutankhamun with another man who was a full brother of the KV55 individual and who had much the same alleles at the loci. If KV55 is not Akhenaten, the latter can still have sired King Tut.

This is not possible, based upon the Hawass, Gad, et al analysis. They stated, on p. 2-3 of the eSupplement:

GenoProof® calculates the paternity index for individual markers as well as the combined paternity index for all examined loci as well as the paternity/maternity likelihood W. A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “paternity is practically proven.”

<...>The statistical analysis revealed that the mummy KV55 is most probably the father of Tutankhamun (probability of 99.99999981%), and KV35 Younger Lady could be identified as his mother (99.99999997%).


That means KV 55 is Tutankhamun's father: end of story. No matter which side you look at this, no one else sired Tutankhamun.

Even the subesquent criticism of the Hawass, Gad report (found in the February 17 issue of JAMA), did not question this particular finding. However, even full brothers can have similar alleles, but they are often positioned differently on various loci. Thus a brother would not necessarily match the DNA of his own full brother, and so not be the sire of a child. However, the sire of Tutankhamun is KV 55, who holds a 99.99999981% probablilty.

So, where she gets the idea that it's possible that Tutankhamun was sired by someone other than KV 55 remains, to me, a mystery, since brothers do not always have the same alleles in the same location.

She even theorises about this as well, though incorrectly: she proposed that Akhenaten had 11/16 alleles in the first loci, different from KV 55, just so she could get him to be the sire of KV 21A (3 paragraphs down from the above quote), not apparently realising that allele 16 is a non transmitted allele (and is so stated to the side of Hawass, Gad.et al. DNA revew in JAMA, p. 641).

All I am saying is to be careful of relying upon laymen's analysis of genetics, unless you yourself really understand genetics and/or have a good background in the field.

I consider myself a layman, BTW, but I do have something of a background in genetics, from biology studies some years ago.

Reference:

Hawass, Z., Y. Z. Gad, et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. Journal of the American medical Association 303 (7): 638-47.

Hawass, Z., Y. Z. Gad, et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. (eSupplement). Journal of the American medical Association 303 (7): 1-12.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="neseret"]
SidneyF wrote:
neseret wrote:
I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :

For one, I would be careful of using this article as a means to determine what the DNA results say. First, I know the author tends to have a particular axe to grind about Nefertiti (she insists on her as Tut's mother, something she has done since the 1990's, and has identified several mummies over the years as being that of Nefertiti, without much proof)


Where is your proof of that? As far as I know, Marianne Luban, has only identified the YL35 as Nefertiti. And Google seems to indicate you have quite an axe to grind regarding Luban, but I'm sure you wouldn't want a discussion of the logistics of that!


Quote:
Actually it is the reverse, but again, not pertinent to this discussion.
. Very enigmatic, but where is the proof I asked for about Ms. Luban having "identified several mummies over the years as that of Nefertiti? Google brings up nothing to substantiate such an allegation.

SidneyF wrote:
neseret wrote:
secondly, she does not follow what even a cursory read of the JAMA results have submitted.

For example, I note she is quick to point out that KV 55 and KV 35YL are full brother and sister, but seems to want to deny KV 55 is Smenkhkare since KV 35 YL cannot be Meritaten. Stop and think about this: one fact does not necessarily lead the next as a conclusion.


No, she doesn't deny KV55 can be Smenkhare at all. She simply states the parents of Tutankhamun cannot be Smnkhkare AND Meritaten--if they are KV55 and the YL. Why she says it is very obvious from the JAMA paper. Because Meritaten was not a child of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye--which the YL is--according to the DNA provided by the JAMA paper. Perhaps you should read the JAMA paper more than in a cursory fashion.


Quote:
However, as for her cursory read of the situation, what was noted earlier is a valid objection, which the Hawass, Gad 2010 review specifically states and Nefer-Ankh noted. Ms. Luban stated:


Hold on. Ms. Luban did not say she gave a "cursory" read of the situation.
And anyone with a knowledge of the JAMA paper and genetics would realize that she couldn't possibly have--due to her analysis. This is rather funny! Laughing The "cursory" was what you admitted was your perusal of the paper.

Quote:
There is nothing preventing the KV35YL from being the mother of Tutankhamun with another man who was a full brother of the KV55 individual and who had much the same alleles at the loci. If KV55 is not Akhenaten, the latter can still have sired King Tut.


Quote:
This is not possible, based upon the Hawass, Gad, et al analysis. They stated, on p. 2-3 of the eSupplement:

<...>The statistical analysis revealed that the mummy KV55 is most probably the father of Tutankhamun (probability of 99.99999981%), and KV35 Younger Lady could be identified as his mother (99.99999997%).[/i]

That means KV 55 is Tutankhamun's father: end of story. No matter which side you look at this, no one else sired Tutankhamun.

Even the subesquent criticism of the Hawass, Gad report (found in the February 17 issue of JAMA), did not question this particular finding. However, even full brothers can have similar alleles, but they are often positioned differently on various loci. Thus a brother would not necessarily match the DNA of his own full brother, and so not be the sire of a child. However, the sire of Tutankhamun is KV 55, who holds a 99.99999981% probablilty.

So, where she gets the idea that it's possible that Tutankhamun was sired by someone other than KV 55 remains, to me, a mystery, since brothers do not always have the same alleles in the same location.


No they don't, but it isn't too often men have children with their full sisters. There are only 8 markers there! Believe me, another full brother can have been involved. The only way to rule him out would be to have his DNA [which they don't, as of now] and look at more markers. Two full brothers with one full sister! That permits a lot more variation than is the norm when it comes to the alleles. Hawass at el didn't address this possibility of a full brother. Why would they, when they seemed satisfied that KV55 was "probably" Akhenaten?

Quote:
She even theorises about this as well, though incorrectly: she proposed that Akhenaten had 11/16 alleles in the first loci, different from KV 55, just so she could get him to be the sire of KV 21A (3 paragraphs down from the above quote), not apparently realising that allele 16 is a non transmitted allele (and is so stated to the side of Hawass, Gad.et al. DNA revew in JAMA, p. 641)


What do you mean "nontransmitted"? You are misinterpreting something because ALL alleles when it comes to autosomal DNA are transmitted from someone! At every locus, you get one allele from each parent. There's no way to get around it, Ms. Griffis-Greenberg. It's just a fact.
What was probably meant is that there was some allele [and there are quite a few when it comes to these mummies] where the transmission is open to question. One doesn't know where they came from, which parent. This applies to Yuya, Thuya, and Amenhotep III. I'm afraid you are incorrect in your criticism.


Quote:
All I am saying is to be careful of relying upon laymen's analysis of genetics, unless you yourself really understand genetics and/or have a good background in the field.

I consider myself a layman, BTW, but I do have something of a background in genetics, from biology studies some years ago.


That's nice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group